Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning And Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves 3.44-acre rezoning at Owens Chapel Road, rejects 7.46-acre Swift Road rezoning
Summary
At a public hearing the commission approved a 3.44-acre rezoning request at 12810 Owens Chapel Road (AG2 to R40) and denied a separate 7.46-acre rezoning request on Swift Road (AG2 to RP80). Planning recommended both by votes of 7–0; the commission split on the two items.
The Robertson County Commission approved one rezoning request and rejected another after a public hearing on Aug. 18.
Resolution 081825055, an applicant-request by Josh Bush to rezone 3.44 acres at 12810 Owens Chapel Road (tax map 083, parcel 004.008) from AG‑2 to R‑40, passed following a public hearing. The applicant told the commission the parcel contains an existing house and septic and water service; the request was described as a measure to bring the property into compliance and to allow construction of a single-family stick-built house in place of a demolished structure. The county planning commission had recommended approval by a 7–0 vote. The chairman called the roll and announced the recorded result as read at the meeting; the clerk’s announced tally was read during the session and the chairman declared the resolution passed.
A second request, resolution 081825056, sought to rezone 7.46 acres at 7535 Swift Road (tax map 117, parcel 160) from AG‑2 to RP‑80 to create four lots (an existing house would remain and three additional lots would be created). The planning commission recommended approval by a 7–0 vote, but several commissioners raised traffic, access and policy questions before the commission voted. Planning staff said driveway permits and a pending planning resolution on subdivision/lot standards and traffic-study requirements were expected to be addressed in forthcoming staff work. After discussion the chairman announced the roll (as read during the meeting) and declared the rezoning did not pass.
Both rezoning requests were considered during the public hearing portion of the meeting. Applicants and representatives addressed the commission in favor of their requests; county planning staff answered technical questions about surrounding zoning and permitting. The record indicates planners and some commissioners expect additional work on traffic and subdivision standards before similar lot‑split rezoning requests advance.
The commission closed the public hearing and returned to regular session after the votes.
